3D-Printed Versus Band-and-Loop Versus Denovo Space Maintainers in Primary Dentition.
NCT07613658 · Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 360
Last updated 2026-05-29
Summary
Purpose of the Study When a child loses a "baby" molar early due to a cavity or injury, the surrounding teeth can shift into the empty space. This often blocks the permanent adult tooth from growing in correctly. To prevent this, dentists use a small metal device called a space maintainer.
This study aims to find out which of three different types of space maintainers lasts the longest, is most comfortable for the child, and is most efficient for the dental office to provide.
The Three Study Groups
Children in this study are randomly assigned to one of three groups:
1. 3D-Printed Custom Group: The dentist takes a digital picture (scan) of the child's mouth instead of a traditional mold. A custom-fit appliance is then 3D-printed using a specialized, medical-grade clear material.
2. Conventional Band-and-Loop Group: This is the traditional method. The dentist takes a physical mold of the teeth, which is sent to a laboratory. The child usually has to return for a second appointment a week later to have the metal appliance glued into place.
3. Denovo Chairside Group: This uses a kit of pre-made metal parts. The dentist selects the best fit and assembles the appliance right at the chairside, allowing it to be placed during a single visit.
What is Being Measured?
Researchers are following the children for 12 months to track:
Survival: Which appliance stays glued in and doesn't break most effectively?
Time: How much time does the dentist spend making and fitting the appliance?
Comfort: How much discomfort or pain did the child feel during the process?
Health: Does the appliance cause any irritation to the gums or surrounding teeth?
Who Can Participate? The study includes children between the ages of 5 and 10 who have lost at least one primary (baby) molar early and need a space maintainer to protect their future adult smile.
Importance of This Research By comparing these three methods, this study helps dentists understand if newer technologies, like 3D printing or pre-made kits, are better or more convenient than the traditional lab-made metal loops used for decades. This information will help families choose the best treatment for their children.
Conditions
- Space Maintenance
- Tooth Loss / Rehabilitation
Interventions
- DEVICE
-
3D-Printed Custom Space Maintainer
A digitally designed, monolithic space maintainer. The workflow involves an intraoral scan (3Shape TRIOS) and CAD design (exocad). The device is fabricated using stereolithography (SLA) technology (Formlabs Form 3B+) with BioMed Clear Resin. It is bonded to the abutment tooth using a light-cured orthodontic adhesive
- DEVICE
-
Conventional Band-and-Loop Space Maintainer
The traditional clinical reference standard. It is fabricated using an analog workflow: an alginate impression is taken to create a stone model, a stainless steel band (3M Unitek) is fitted to the model, and a 0.036-inch stainless steel wire is hand-contoured and silver-soldered to the band. The appliance is polished and cemented with glass ionomer cement.
- DEVICE
-
Denovo Chairside Space Maintainer
A prefabricated, stainless steel space maintainer system (Denovo Dental) designed for immediate application. A pre-sized band is selected and fitted directly to the patient's tooth. A pre-formed wire loop is adjusted for length at the chairside and mechanically secured to the band using a specialized crimping and locking tool, requiring no laboratory soldering. It is cemented during the initial appointment.
Sponsors & Collaborators
-
Murad Alrashidi
lead OTHER
Principal Investigators
-
MURAD ALRASHIDI, BDS, MSC · Qassim University
Study Design
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Purpose
- PREVENTION
- Masking
- SINGLE
- Model
- PARALLEL
Eligibility
- Min Age
- 5 Years
- Max Age
- 10 Years
- Sex
- ALL
- Healthy Volunteers
- Yes
Timeline & Regulatory
- Start
- 2026-06-30
- Primary Completion
- 2027-06-30
- Completion
- 2027-07-31
- FDA Device
- Yes
Countries
- Saudi Arabia
Study Locations
More Related Trials
-
3D-printed Crowns Versus Zirconia Crowns for Primary Molars
NCT06068244 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
3D-printed Crowns Versus Prefabricated Stainless-Steel Crowns for Intermediate Restoration of Compromised First Permanent Molars
NCT06047925 ·Status: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Bioceramic Putty Versus MTA in Pulpotomized Primary Teeth to be Covered With 3D Printed Resin Crowns Versus Stainless Steel Crown
NCT07344038 ·Status: RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Fiber Reinforced Composite Resin Space Maintainer Modified With Silver Nano Particles
NCT05902975 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
Three Dimensional Printed Versus Conventional Heat Cured Acrylic Complete Denture
NCT05585008 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Comparison of 3D Printed Composite Resin Crowns With Stainless Steel Crowns
NCT06161103 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
3D-printed Ceromer Crowns Versus Stainless Steel in Posterior Primary Molars
NCT07091331 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Evaluation of Clinical Wear and Surface Roughness of Partial Restorations Produced by Additive and Subtractive Manufacturing Methods: A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
NCT07057401 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Digital vs Conventional Prosthetic Rehab & Occlusal Analysis in Edentulous Patients
NCT07164066 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Performance of Reinforced 3D-Printed Versus Direct Bulk-Filled Resin Composites for Restoring Extensive Class II Cavities in Vital Molars
NCT07429747 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Clinical Evaluation of Polymethyl Methacrylate CAD/CAM Crowns Versus Prefabricated Zirconia Crowns in Primary Molars
NCT06113770 ·Status: ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Patient Satisfaction & Retention of Milled, 3D Printed and Conventional Complete Dentures
NCT03281603 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Remineralization of Caries Affected Dentin
NCT04262076 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Comparing Impression Techniques for Maxillary Complete Denture Retention
NCT06497621 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
The Effect of Material Choice on Clinical Outcomes in Deep Margin Elevation
NCT07234266 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Clinical Performance of Alkasite-based Restorations in Children
NCT07263555 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
This Study is Conducted to Evaluate the Clinical Performance of Indirect Overlay Restorations With Different Cavity Preparation Designs in Endodontically Treated Molars.
NCT07614451 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Primary Molars Restoration Using Different Pediatric Crowns.
NCT04144062 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Clinical Performance and Convenience of Four Types of Crowns for Primary Molars
NCT06456879 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
36-Month Clinical Performance of Different Restorative Materials in the Treatment of Root Caries Lesions
NCT03722758 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
Relapse and Failure Rates Between CAD/CAM and Conventional Fixed Retainers
NCT05915273 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA
-
Impact of Different Separation Methods on Proximal Contact Tightness and Contour of Compound Class ii
NCT06606379 ·Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING ·Phase: NA
-
Measurement of the Biting Force of Rabid Heat Cured Acrylic Resin Versus Modified Conventional Acrylic
NCT03006757 ·Status: UNKNOWN ·Phase: NA
-
"Facially Driven Digital Full-Mouth Rehabilitation"
NCT07314034 ·Status: RECRUITING
-
Evaluation Between Zirconia and Stainless Steel Crowns
NCT03067337 ·Status: COMPLETED ·Phase: NA